The Recall Walker group solicits signatures for smokes

This video is from Thursday, November 17th. In it you will see someone 1) getting two girls who look to be under 18 to sign the recall petition, and 2) one of those girls receiving a cigarette in exchange.

You will also see the man circulating the petition quite well. (Did he just supply a minor with tobacco?)

I was a little concerned about the authenticity of that video, so I contacted the contributor. Here’s part of his reponse:

The short version is I’m just a guy who was driving on 43N and saw the Sheriff had the North Ave. exits closed. I got off on the next exit to loop around and see what was going on. I was able to get right up to the event and parked in the Wendy’s parking lot on 7th and North. I didn’t “fit in” with the crowd but was able to use my cell phone to grab some video and pics of this going on in front of me. Later as the police allowed people to move across a line they had established, I was able to stand up with the news media group where it looked like I belonged!

Although the WisDems call the 105,000 signatures they collected in four days “momentum,” the rest of us see it as fraud. What’s more, if the Wisconsin Democrats are having to resort to cigarettes for signatures from possibly under-aged people, that momentum might lag soon, don’t you think?

You political type help me out here. What tools does Walker have to force every signature to be verified? If fraudulent signatures are allowed on the recall sheets, that could be a problem. If every signature has to be verified, well, I doubt they’ll make the count.

Also, I’ve been curious about the number of groups circulating petitions. Does the total number of signatures have to come under one sponsoring group, or can the groups pool their petition pages? My assumption is that they must be under one group, but I’d love verification.


  1. Randy in Richmond says:

    Are signatures crosschecked against multiple signings ?

  2. to be sure the office of the state attorney general will have the answers. so will the well paid private lawyers and expert pols on both sides.

  3. I don’t know about the sponsoring organization and whether all signatures have to come under their umbrella, but I can tell you by law the State Elections Board has to verify “Each signer is a qualified elector of the district represented by the officeholder” in this case the State. I would suspect Walker’s lawyers will be there hand in hand verifying each signature, contending those that are not qualified.

  4. If I remember correctly the groups may be able to combine efforts. I think a couple of Republican recall groups entertained a merger, but one said no because the other was from out of state.

    From a bit of googlin’ it looks like some did merge

  5. What? You’re worried about cigarette smoking? A conservative? Whoa! Maybe you need to examine your inner soul and eradicate that anti smoking thing you have hanging around in it!

  6. David, thanks for a fine example of the logic driving the left.

  7. Randy in Richmond says:

    So David, if I oppose buying votes/signatures with money, that makes me anti-money ?

  8. So…where are the photos?

  9. A question? I would have expected a simple “there are no photos.”

  10. No, the link you gave swears there are photos. So where are they?

  11. My point is, your side will simply ignore any evidence which contradicts your ill-backed assumptions, and once it becomes overwhelming, you’ll just drop it and never speak of it again. Don’t you remember the press conference by the (R)s outside the “repeat voter’s” house? No apology was ever extended after it was soundly debunked. I mean it was a kid studying for the priesthood for crying outside. Shameless.

  12. In fact, let’s make a deal jimspice. You get me interviews with these two young women where I verify their photo id’s and I’ll apologize. It’s as simple as that. (Plus, dang! I’d love genetics that let me look that young at 18!)

  13. I’m not sure what you’re talking about. A link would be helpful. Still, my offer stands. Heck, I’m one of the only people I know who doesn’t mind being proven wrong. Go for it.

  14. Didn’t realize you were appointed official signature validator. And contrary to popular sentiment, all we liberals do not know one another, so I won’t be able to extend an introduction.

  15. In other words, no proof can be made. Hey, if you can live with the ambiguity, so can I.

  16. EyeOnWisconsin nails the propensity of the right to refuse to acknowledge error and to apologize ( Be sure to follow the link attached to the phrase “a press conference in front of the residence of the falsely accused.”

  17. Funny – all those links and a press conference! (for another issue) and no photos. What a shame.

    You wouldn’t be trying to deflect attention, would you?

  18. Dig in Cindy. Dig in.

  19. I’m not digging, jimspice. All I want is the opportunity for proof. It can’t be that hard.

  20. Randy in Richmond says:

    I went to

    as you advised jimspice. It has absolutely nothing to do with this post. Not to mention that incident took place in August of 2005 .

  21. What are you talking about? It’s about the exact same subject!

  22. Randy in Richmond says:

    I didn’t say subject–I said ‘this post’– where a signature was essentially bought. Her age is not important to that end.

  23. The “smoking gun” has disappeared.

    “Update: Monday morning, the Democratic Party of Wisconsin released information to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that allegedly shows that the individuals mentioned in the below story are in fact over the age of 18. Media Trackers is still pursuing this story in order to ascertain whether or not the cigarettes were offered expressly in exchange for a signature on the recall petition.”

  24. Never said there was a smoking gun. Only suggested if there were photos with their IDs, all of us should be able to see them.

    Gosh, now Milton has joined jimspice in demanding I am wrong. Guess he needed backup. As I explained, when I see it for myself, I’ll apologize. Until then I’m comfortable in standing my ground.

  25. Randy in Richmond says:

    Here is mediatrackers conclusion:

    “But the fact that circumstantial evidence points to a potential likelihood that such an illegal and unethical act took place raises doubts about the integrity of the Occupy movement’s participation in the recall of Governor Scott Walker.

    This has nothing to do with the MJS receiving yet to be provided proof of the age of the recipient of the cigarette. If it shows she’s 40 the signature was still compensated for.

  26. Hmmm. It is interesting that the video has been removed by the original poster. I’d say that doesn’t look too good. Here’s a copy:

    I also read a bit this morning where one of the girls was interviewed on WISN. I haven’t seen it, but when I do, I’ll let you know.

    Ok, I watched the video. Again, no photos of the IDs.

  27. “interesting that the video has been removed”

    That’s the “smoking gun” I was referring to.

  28. Randy in Richmond says:

    Removing the video gives me great pause.

  29. (Sorry – I did stuff this morning instead of staring at the computer.)

    Randy – Yes, it does create an uneasy feeling. It’s kind of a novice move to not own what you’ve created. But then, it was indicated that indeed a novice (to the Wisconsin blogging/political community) had created it.

    Milton – Why didn’t you just say so?